Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35263437›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2022

The technical landscape for patient-centered CDS: progress, gaps, and challenges.

Prashila Dullabh, Krysta Heaney-Huls, David F Lobach, Lauren S Hovey, Shana F Sandberg, Priyanka J Desai, Edwin Lomotan, James Swiger, Michael I Harrison, Chris Dymek and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Enhancing Large Language Models for Clinical Decision Support by Incorporating Clinical Practice Guidelines.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Centering the patient in informatics applications.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Prashila DullabhNORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Krysta Heaney-HulsNORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
David F LobachElimu Informatics, El Cerrito, California, USA.
Lauren S HoveyNORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Shana F SandbergNORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Priyanka J DesaiNORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1573-4790
Edwin LomotanCenter for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
James SwigerCenter for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Michael I HarrisonCenter for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Chris DymekCenter for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Dean F SittigSchool of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5811-8915
Aziz BoxwalaElimu Informatics, El Cerrito, California, USA.

Funding

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville HHSP233201500023I
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Supporting healthcare decision-making that is patient-centered and evidence-based requires investments in the development of tools and techniques for dissemination of patient-centered outcomes research findings via methods such as clinical decision support (CDS). This article explores the technical landscape for patient-centered CDS (PC CDS) and the gaps in making PC CDS more shareable, standards-based, and publicly available, with the goal of improving patient care and clinical outcomes. This landscape assessment used: (1) a technical expert panel; (2) a literature review; and (3) interviews with 18 CDS stakeholders. We identified 7 salient technical considerations that span 5 phases of PC CDS development. While progress has been made in the technical landscape, the field must advance standards for translating clinical guidelines into PC CDS, the standardization of CDS insertion points into the clinical workflow, and processes to capture, standardize, and integrate patient-generated health data.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalHumansPatient-Centered CareWorkflowclinical decision supportpatient-centered care, patient-generated health data

Identifiers

PMID35263437
PMCPMC9093031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.